the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land, strip it of certain rights inherent in fee ownership, hold it for unearned increment, and then sell it for "more than 100 percent of the initial acquisition cost." Who now becomes a land speculator?

This is bad public policy even if the acquisition is from willing sellers. It would cause all property owners to wonder why the Government wants to buy-for use, or for speculative profit. If for profit, the existing owners would quite reasonably want to hold out for as much of the gain as possible, thus adding to the upward pressure on land prices. We consider it absolutely indefensible for the Government to condemn land from unwilling sellers and then sell it for a profit. If the Government needs the property it should prove and validate such need by prompt and effective use. If the Government does not need the property, it should be prohibited and prevented from taking it. When there is a legitimate current need for an interest less than fee simple, the negotiations should be aimed specifically at that interest. Nothing more should be acquired. No threat of full condemnation should be made to force the owners to give up part of their property rights.

Secretary Udall, in the testimony, stated that in the proposed sellback and lease-back of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways the land should be sold subject to the condition that if it is used for other than farming, title will automatically revert to the Federal Government. In all equity, the reverse should also apply, that when the Federal Government condemns land for a particular purpose, if it uses the land for other than that purpose the land should revert to the original

owner.

We are concerned about the concept of condemning land for presumed public necessity, and then opening it for the filing of mineral claims. This strikes us as inequitable, and subject to possible abuse by graft or collusion. If the mineral rights are essential to or in conflict with the Government's use of the property, the mineral rights should be specifically excluded from public claim. If the exercise of mineral rights does not adversely affect the use of the property by the Government, then the mineral rights should be reserved to the landowners at the time the Government acquires the surface rights.

In this respect, let me cite section 6(c) of S. 119, the wild and scenic rivers bill which was passed by the Senate last August. We think that section unnecessarily takes rights from private owners and throws them up for grabs.

We propose that section 2 of S. 1401 and H.R. 8578 be amended to provide that-

No property or rights therein acquired by condemnation may be disposed of by sale, exchange, lease, or otherwise, except to the original owner from whom it was acquired, or his heirs, for a period of ten years after the actual date of consummation of the acquisition. If any such property is sold back to the former owner, the price which he may be charged shall not exceed the amount paid to him at the time of acquisition, and any Federal income or capital gains taxes paid by him at the time of acquisition must be deducted from the price he pays when he re-acquires the property.

I also wish to recommend the following legislation to be introduced or included in the bills under consideration as an amendment. This proposed bill or amendment has been approved by the board of directors of the Potomac Federation after careful study.

A BILL. To protect privately owned property from condemnation for public purposes which are desirable but less than vital, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

SEC. 1. 40 U.S. Code 257 is hereby amended to read as follows:

a. In every case in which the Secretary of the Treasury or any other officer of the Government has been, or hereafter shall be, authorized to procure real estate for the erection of a public building or for other public uses, he may acquire the same for the United States by condemnation, under judicial process, whenever in his opinion it is necessary or advantageous to the Government to do so: Provided, however, That condemnation shall not be used by any public officer to acquire land for parks, or recreational or scenic purposes, from natural persons, without the prior written consent of the owners, and the Attorney General of the United States, upon every application of the Secretary of the Treasury, under this section and section 258 of this title, or such other officer, shall cause proceedings to be commenced for condemnation within thirty days from receipt of the application at the Department of Justice.

b. When the Congress deems it essential in the public interest to take personally-owned property for parks, or recreational or scenic purposes, it shall first define and delimit the property, make active efforts to place notice of proposed taking in the actual hands of the natural owners, and schedule and hold public hearings in the area of the property, with due public notice, prior to the passage of specific legislation authorizing the acquisition of such property by the Government.

In the absence of such modifications as herein suggested, we are opposed to these bills. If the suggested changes are made, it is our belief that the resulting legislation can perhaps serve a useful purpose while protecting the owners of homes, farms, and small businesses from undue damage to their rights.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CHURCH. Mr. Moulton, I appreciate your testimony. I think that the affect of land acquisition on the tax base is a very important consideration. If you lived in my State, you would be even more aware of it. My State is 70 percent owned by the Federal Government. I believe that is the last witness.

Are there any other witnesses who want to be heard?

The session is adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.

Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m. the committee was recessed subject to call.

89-619-68-18

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Henry M. Jackson, Washington; Clinton P. Anderson, New Mexico; Frank E. Moss, Utah; Quentin N. Burdick, North Dakota; Thomas H. Kuchel, California; Len B. Jordan, Idaho; and Clifford P. Hansen, Wyoming.

Also present: Jerry T. Verkler, staff director; Stewart French, chief counsel; Roy M. Whitacre and Porter Ward, professional staff members; and E. Lewis Reid, minority counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

This is a continuation of the public hearings held by the Senate Interior Committee on February 5 and 6 on bills to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

These measures are S. 1401, a bill that the chairman introduced along with other members of this committee, which would make muchneeded new revenues available for the land and water conservation fund; S. 2828, Senator Harris' bill that would prohibit the collection of the admission or user fees for which the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act provides at any Corps of Engineers water facilities; and S. 531, sponsored by our able colleague on the committee, Senator Kuchel, the primary provisions of which are incorporated into S. 1401. The texts of these measures, together with the report and comment of the executive agencies already have been placed in this hearing record.

There also was referred to the committee and is pending before it, S. 1826, a bill sponsored by the distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Russell Long. S. 1826 is directly related to the subject matter of these hearings today because both it and S. 1401 would make use of the revenues from mineral leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf, but for different purposes.

S. 1401 would dedicate these outer shelf revenues, for a strictly limited period of 5 years, to the land and water conservation fund. Included would be the Federal share of funds held in escrow from disputed areas.

S. 1826 would divide the outer shelf revenues among the States. Thirty-seven and one-half percent of these revenues would go to the

adjacent coastal States to be used for roads or public education, and the remaining 6212 percent would be divided among the 50 States, on the basis of population, for public education.

Thus the Long bill and S. 1401 provide for totally different uses of the same money; clearly we cannot have both bills, at least in the form in which they were introduced.

Some idea of the magnitude and importance of what we are talking about can be gained from the following facts:

The funds held in escrow from mineral leasing operations in disputed areas off the coast of Louisiana-the only State off which any substantial production in areas that might be outer shelf areas has taken place-now total approximately $1 billion in round figures. Thus the State would get some $375 million immediately under Senator Long's bill, plus Louisiana's share under the 621/2-percent formula based on population.

In the recent sale of outer shelf leases off California some $603 million was realized in bonuses alone. This is from only 373,000 acres, and thus the average bonus was some $11,000 an acre.

In general, revenues from the outer shelf have been running at something like $500 million a year.

Without objection I will direct that a statistical table of receipts from the Outer Continental Shelf leasing operations from 1955 through 1967 be placed in this hearing record at this point. It shows that a little over $3 billion has accrued.

(The document referred to follows:)

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RECEIPTS, FISCAL YEARS 1955 THROUGH 1967; UPDATED THROUGH JAN. 31, 1968

1 GAO adjustment taken from general fund and placed in escrow. Note: Does not include California sale of Feb. 6, 1968, of $602,719,621.60 bonus and 1st year rental of $1,089,543.

A review of the floor debate on the bill in the 88th Congress, H.R. 3846, which established the land and water conservation fund, shows that the policy of earmarking or dedicating funds from a specific source to a specific purpose troubles some Senators.

Our committee report on H.R. 3846 lists some seven precedents for the kind of earmarking for which S. 1401 makes provision. Without objection I will direct that this list, found on pages 17 and 18 of Senate Report 1364, 88th Congress, be made a part of this hearing record.